Prime Minister Andy Burnham is considering establishing nine regional bodies to increase local political oversight of water companies across England and Wales, part of a broader effort to enhance public control of essential services. The proposed regional entities, likely composed of mayors, local council leaders, and sector experts, would be tasked with setting objectives for water providers and holding them accountable for issues such as bills, supply shortages, and sewage discharges. This initiative reflects Burnham’s campaign commitment to “end 40 years of neoliberalism” by shifting control from the private sector toward public interests.
The concept of regional oversight was initially proposed by Sir Jon Cunliffe’s Independent Water Commission in 2025, recommending new authorities responsible for planning, funding, and monitoring water services without replacing the national regulator, Ofwat. Instead, Cunliffe’s report, which ministers have accepted, calls for dismantling Ofwat and consolidating its functions with environmental regulators to create a more empowered body overseeing the sector.
Government officials have described Burnham’s plans as exploratory, with details expected in a forthcoming “10-year plan” scheduled for release in November. The prime minister faces pressing decisions, particularly regarding Thames Water, a financially troubled company potentially requiring a multi-billion-pound bailout or nationalisation. Burnham has previously signaled willingness to nationalise Thames Water, though legal reforms to place it into special administration are also under consideration.
However, the proposed regional oversight model has drawn mixed reactions from activists, experts, and industry observers. Advocates of public ownership argue that transferring oversight to local political leaders without granting financial control or ownership will fall short of real reform. Critics caution that oversight alone cannot prevent dividend payments, financial extraction, or investment shortfalls, which they say have contributed to rising customer dissatisfaction and environmental failures.
Mat Lawrence, director of the Common Wealth thinktank, underscored concerns that devolved oversight might lack authority to curb shareholder dividends or reclaim public operation of water services. Similarly, Mark McVitie, former Labour Growth Group director, described the need for “public control” to extend beyond scrutiny and questioned whether local leaders could enforce public interest against monopoly operators.
Campaigners such as Feargal Sharkey and Cat Hobbs have warned that creating additional governing committees risks becoming a bureaucratic “cop out” unless accompanied by fundamental ownership changes. They point to persistent problems, including increased sewage pollution and the allocation of a significant portion of water bills—estimated by Common Wealth at one-third—to debt and shareholder dividends rather than infrastructure improvements. Concerns have also been raised about potential inequalities arising from varying levels of local commitment, leading to a possible postcode lottery in water service quality.
Customer dissatisfaction appears to be growing, with complaints to the Consumer Council for Water rising 48% year-on-year—the highest increase in two decades. The council’s chief executive, Mike Keil, emphasized the urgency for water companies to rebuild consumer trust amid ongoing challenges.
A government spokesperson affirmed the intent to move toward stronger regulation, enforcement, and accountability to ensure water companies better serve customers and the environment. As the debate continues, the prime minister’s upcoming plan will clarify whether regional oversight functions will include financial powers or remain advisory, shaping the future of England’s water sector governance.